■Sa 



194 



I)arl)niir8 was confined entirely l<» lisliermen cn^n^od in the iiisiioic tisliery. TIiul 

 Treaty hud no reference t<» any «)tlier fishery wimlever. it was a Treaty confined 

 to iiiHliore tisliernien and insiiore tishericH, and we agreed thai we slionhl he allowed 

 to (ish inshore at certain piaccH, and if we would renounce the lishery within tiirec 

 miles at certain jiiaees, we Hhonhl enter tiie portH witliin those three-mile lisheries 

 which we nf;ri'e(i to renounce, for the purpose of {^etlinp; wood, water, &tc. The 

 liniilation and permission <ro to<{ethcr, and are coniined simply to those en^a^^^ed 

 in the thnv-milc iisiicry. I contend that to-day, ui\(ler that Treaty, the Hunkers 

 are not relerred to, and they have the rii^ht to enter any port ol' iNewloundland, and 

 huy l)ait and ice and transship their carf>o('s, without rej'ert'nci! to that Treaty. I 

 insist that it is a Treaty rclerrinn" to a special class of people, that those |)eopIc 

 are not included who are excluded from the three-mile limit, and ii' they are not so 

 included, they have the ri^ht to ft'o to any port and purchase the articles they 

 require. In other words, while the Ihitish CJovernment mif;ht say that none of the 

 inshore lishernien should enter the harbours, exc«"|)t tor wood and water, yet the 

 Hankers liom Newloundland had a perlect rif;ht to go int») port lor any reuson 

 whatever, unless some commercial re{;idation between the I'nited States and Great 

 llritain lorhade them. With regard to the construction that is to be placed upon 

 the Articles of the Treaty of 1871, .Mr. 'I'homson seems very much surprised at 

 the construction we have put u|)on it. Mere is the arrangement: — ((^)uotes I'roni 

 Convention of liSI^ and Treaty of 1871.) 



Does that take away the prohibition ? Surely if it had been intended to remove 

 that prohibit'O!. it would have been stated. In addition to your right to fish on 

 certain coasts, and enter certain harbours only for wood and water, that Treaty 

 says you siiall h.ivc the right '• To take lish of every kind, c.\cept shcll-lish, on the 

 sea coasts and shores ami in the bays, harbours, and creeks of the Provinces of 

 Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New IJrunswick. and the Colony of Prince Mdwurd 

 Island, and of the several islands thereto adjacent, without being restricted to any 

 distance from the shore, wilii permission to land u|)on the said i-oasts .'ind sliores 

 and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their 

 nets and cnriniL, tlieir lish." " Drying their nets and curing their lish." 'I'hat is 

 all — tliat is the whole additional 'I'reaty privilege, and I can sec no power of 

 construction in this ('ommission. !iy wiiich it can add to Treaty stipidation the 

 foreign words "and buy ice. bait, supplies, and transship." .\nd yet the British 

 counsi'l admit tiiat, witiiout these words, our intei|)retation is indisputable. NVc 

 had a certain rigiiL and cerlair. liinilations ot that riL;iit by the Treaty of J818, 

 and the Treaty of 1871 says, in addition we give you the further right to take, 

 drj% and cure tish, and nothing else. The reason is very obvious. It is very 

 evident that wlicn the Treaty was drawn, for evei-y advantage outside of that 

 clause we were to be called on. according to the theory of the Mritish counsel, 

 to pay compensation. We never iiad been called on to pay for the privilege of 

 buying bait and ice, and we had received no notice from I he Colonial (.iovi-rtuncnt 

 of any inleiition to make such claim, which was contrary to the whole policv of 

 Circai Hrilain, and woidd not be sustained. Why shoidd we have to pay for that 

 privilege? A\'(> (lid not insert it in th(! 'J'reaty, because we did not iiiti-nd to |)ay 

 for it ; tli;il is the reason it is not there. 



I lea\e ;i;iy further reply to the learmul counsel who will follow mc. 

 J am anxious as to }our decision. I have not desired to conceal, and I have 

 not concealed the fact, that the people anti (iovernmeiit oi' the I'nited States regard 

 this claim of 15,000, OOO dollars as too extravagant for serious consideration. 1 

 know at the same lime that they sincerely wish for a final settlement of this 

 irritating eiMilroversy. And therefore I earnestly hope that you will be able to 

 reach a derision which will limit, within reasoiiabh! proportion.-., a claim which, as 

 it stands, it is simply idle to discuss. 



Vou start from a point we can never reach. A day or two ago, during the 

 session, I happened to go into the Commission Consulting Koom, and iound on the 

 table a copy of " Isaak W.-dton's ('om|)lete Angle\-,'' a v<'ry lit book for the literary 

 reeri'atioii oi' such an occjisioii. On the jiage which was turned down, 1 found a 

 relennce to some South Si a Islanders. I believe, who had such a gigantic inshore 

 fishery that " they made lumber (;f the tish bones." I am afraid that the British 

 counsel have been consulting this book as an authority. 



Mr. Diinii. — May it please \our Mxcellencv and your llon()ur>;, the (|uestion now 

 before the tribunal is, wiicther you have jurisdiction to ascerljun and declare 

 comi'cnsalion because of American fishermen buying bait, ice, and supplies, and 



